Some recommendations about church/wedding pictures

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Sandman, Sep 30, 2010.

  1. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    So, I'm going to shoot a wedding later in october and I've never
    actually shot people inside a dimly lit church before. The ceremony
    will be at 2 pm so the large mosaic windows will surely let some light
    in, but the church is usually pretty dark either way.

    So, with that in mind, I'd like some easy pointers about how to shoot
    the ceremony. Both for when they walk in and out of the church (i.e.
    motion, albeit slow) and shots when they're up on the altar. My
    equipment is this:

    Nikon D3S
    |- Sigma 28mm/1.8
    |- Nikkor 50mm/1.4
    `- Tamron 28-300/3.5-6.3

    Nikon D80
    `- Tamron 18-200/3.5-6.3 (same as above, but DX)

    I will be going to the church prior to the shoot to do some test
    shoots, but I was hoping to get some nudges in the right direction.
    The D3S has awesome ISO so I was hoping that I wouldn't have to crank
    down the aperture and thus get a deeper focus plane. I was also hoping
    to get by without using a tripod.

    Plus, I was kind of hoping to use the zoom lens when they walk into
    the church, and since it has such high aperture, I am concerned about
    the shutter speeds needed.

    Either way, any comments are welcome - even flaming ones :)



    --
    Sandman[.net]
     
    Sandman, Sep 30, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Sandman

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article <>, Sandman
    <> wrote:

    > Either way, any comments are welcome - even flaming ones :)


    Just asking these questions shows that you are unqualified to
    photograph this once-in-a-lifetime event. I don't think I could count
    the number of times I've seen amateurs photograph weddings with
    disastrous results in the end. Tell the couple to cough up the bucks
    and hire a pro.
     
    Mr. Strat, Oct 1, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Sandman

    Nervous Nick Guest

    On Sep 30, 8:59 pm, "Mr. Strat" <> wrote:
    > In article <>, Sandman
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > > Either way, any comments are welcome - even flaming ones :)

    >
    > Just asking these questions shows that you are unqualified to
    > photograph this once-in-a-lifetime event. I don't think I could count
    > the number of times I've seen amateurs photograph weddings with
    > disastrous results in the end. Tell the couple to cough up the bucks
    > and hire a pro.


    Seconded and thirded!
     
    Nervous Nick, Oct 1, 2010
    #3
  4. Sandman

    DanP Guest

    On Sep 30, 10:57 pm, Sandman <> wrote:
    > So, I'm going to shoot a wedding later in october and I've never
    > actually shot people inside a dimly lit church before. The ceremony
    > will be at 2 pm so the large mosaic windows will surely let some light
    > in, but the church is usually pretty dark either way.
    >
    > So, with that in mind, I'd like some easy pointers about how to shoot
    > the ceremony. Both for when they walk in and out of the church (i.e.
    > motion, albeit slow) and shots when they're up on the altar. My
    > equipment is this:
    >
    > Nikon D3S
    >  |- Sigma 28mm/1.8
    >  |- Nikkor 50mm/1.4
    >  `- Tamron 28-300/3.5-6.3
    >
    > Nikon D80
    >  `- Tamron 18-200/3.5-6.3 (same as above, but DX)
    >
    > I will be going to the church prior to the shoot to do some test
    > shoots, but I was hoping to get some nudges in the right direction.
    > The D3S has awesome ISO so I was hoping that I wouldn't have to crank
    > down the aperture and thus get a deeper focus plane. I was also hoping
    > to get by without using a tripod.
    >
    > Plus, I was kind of hoping to use the zoom lens when they walk into
    > the church, and since it has such high aperture, I am concerned about
    > the shutter speeds needed.
    >
    > Either way, any comments are welcome - even flaming ones :)
    >
    > --
    > Sandman[.net]


    Let an experienced photographer do it and try your hand behind him.
    If you mess up you are in big trouble. If you are friends with the
    couple it will be even worse.

    DanP
     
    DanP, Oct 1, 2010
    #4
  5. Sandman

    MC Guest

    Mr. Strat wrote:

    > In article <>, Sandman
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > > Either way, any comments are welcome - even flaming ones :)

    >
    > Just asking these questions shows that you are unqualified to
    > photograph this once-in-a-lifetime event. I don't think I could count
    > the number of times I've seen amateurs photograph weddings with
    > disastrous results in the end. Tell the couple to cough up the bucks
    > and hire a pro.


    Every wedding pro has to shoot their first wedding at some point.
    However, if not as a pro's assistant, first weddings should be limited
    to small, quiet, non church afairs IMO.

    In reply to the OP. In dimly lit locations it is always tempting to
    use high (noisy) ISOs. Try not to do this as the results can, and
    often do, look awful. Use fast lenses. Most wedding photogaphers of
    any worth will spend an awful lot of money on quality, fast lenses.

    MC
     
    MC, Oct 1, 2010
    #5
  6. Sandman

    peter Guest

    On 10/1/2010 10:40 AM, MC wrote:
    > Mr. Strat wrote:
    >
    >> In article<>, Sandman
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Either way, any comments are welcome - even flaming ones :)

    >>
    >> Just asking these questions shows that you are unqualified to
    >> photograph this once-in-a-lifetime event. I don't think I could count
    >> the number of times I've seen amateurs photograph weddings with
    >> disastrous results in the end. Tell the couple to cough up the bucks
    >> and hire a pro.

    >
    > Every wedding pro has to shoot their first wedding at some point.
    > However, if not as a pro's assistant, first weddings should be limited
    > to small, quiet, non church afairs IMO.
    >
    > In reply to the OP. In dimly lit locations it is always tempting to
    > use high (noisy) ISOs. Try not to do this as the results can, and
    > often do, look awful. Use fast lenses. Most wedding photogaphers of
    > any worth will spend an awful lot of money on quality, fast lenses.
    >


    The Nikon D3s has a very high tolerance for noise. However better advice
    would be for the OP to Google for some quick web courses for tips.

    Even try a trial subscription to Lynda.com


    --
    Peter
     
    peter, Oct 1, 2010
    #6
  7. Sandman

    SMS Guest

    On 9/30/2010 2:57 PM, Sandman wrote:
    > So, I'm going to shoot a wedding later in october and I've never
    > actually shot people inside a dimly lit church before. The ceremony
    > will be at 2 pm so the large mosaic windows will surely let some light
    > in, but the church is usually pretty dark either way.
    >
    > So, with that in mind, I'd like some easy pointers about how to shoot
    > the ceremony. Both for when they walk in and out of the church (i.e.
    > motion, albeit slow) and shots when they're up on the altar. My
    > equipment is this:
    >
    > Nikon D3S
    > |- Sigma 28mm/1.8
    > |- Nikkor 50mm/1.4
    > `- Tamron 28-300/3.5-6.3
    >
    > Nikon D80
    > `- Tamron 18-200/3.5-6.3 (same as above, but DX)
    >
    > I will be going to the church prior to the shoot to do some test
    > shoots, but I was hoping to get some nudges in the right direction.
    > The D3S has awesome ISO so I was hoping that I wouldn't have to crank
    > down the aperture and thus get a deeper focus plane. I was also hoping
    > to get by without using a tripod.
    >
    > Plus, I was kind of hoping to use the zoom lens when they walk into
    > the church, and since it has such high aperture, I am concerned about
    > the shutter speeds needed.
    >
    > Either way, any comments are welcome - even flaming ones :)


    Rent a fast, expensive, prime, VR telephoto lens like the 200mm f/2G ED
    VR II. Rent it for two days, and go the day before to practice with some
    stunt doubles. Find out the colors the bride and groom will be wearing
    and dress the stunt doubles in the same colors. Forget about the slow
    zoom--with the high quality prime lens you can crop later and get better
    results.

    Dimly lit venues can be challenging, it's the number two complaint that
    people have with their P&S cameras (number one is the slow AF). With a
    D-SLR and a fast lens you'll get much better results.

    I had an amateur photographer shoot my wedding (film Nikon) and the
    results were outstanding, but it was outdoors and with high end slide
    film (at the time a lot of professionals shot slide film). Digital and
    indoors, well I hope you practice in advance so the B&G won't be
    disappointed.

    You did not mention anything about a flash. Presumably they don't want a
    flash going off in the church. With fast VR lenses you can probably get
    by with no tripod.

    Don't cheap out. Rent some professional lenses. Even if you already
    quoted a price that doesn't include that cost, do it anyway and write it
    off to experience. If you're doing it for a friend, then they should be
    happy to pay the lens rental costs.
     
    SMS, Oct 1, 2010
    #7
  8. Sandman

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 09:17:51 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
    wrote:
    : I suggest if, he goes ahead with this project unassisted, It might be
    : worth considering renting a 70-200mm f/2.8 and/or some other lenses
    : better suited to the difficult light conditions.

    That strikes me as a rather unwieldy lens to use for the first time at a
    wedding. I'm no newbie, but I wouldn't do it unless I was just there as a
    tagalong.

    It's a pretty long lens to use to photograph a wedding anyway, isn't it? I'm
    not that familiar with the Nikon product line; is either of those cameras
    full-frame?

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Oct 2, 2010
    #8
  9. Sandman

    peter Guest

    On 10/1/2010 9:00 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 09:17:51 -0700, Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
    > wrote:
    > : I suggest if, he goes ahead with this project unassisted, It might be
    > : worth considering renting a 70-200mm f/2.8 and/or some other lenses
    > : better suited to the difficult light conditions.
    >
    > That strikes me as a rather unwieldy lens to use for the first time at a
    > wedding. I'm no newbie, but I wouldn't do it unless I was just there as a
    > tagalong.
    >
    > It's a pretty long lens to use to photograph a wedding anyway, isn't it? I'm
    > not that familiar with the Nikon product line; is either of those cameras
    > full-frame?
    >


    The D3s is full frame and low noise at high ISO. Nikon claims over
    100,000 will be noise free. Some of my friends have shot is at 32,000
    with little perceptible noise.

    --
    Peter
     
    peter, Oct 2, 2010
    #9
  10. Sandman

    SMS Guest

    On 10/1/2010 11:38 AM, George Kerby wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > On 10/1/10 12:40 PM, in article 4ca61cfb$0$22139$,
    > "SMS"<> wrote:
    >
    >> On 9/30/2010 2:57 PM, Sandman wrote:
    >>> So, I'm going to shoot a wedding later in october and I've never
    >>> actually shot people inside a dimly lit church before. The ceremony
    >>> will be at 2 pm so the large mosaic windows will surely let some light
    >>> in, but the church is usually pretty dark either way.
    >>>
    >>> So, with that in mind, I'd like some easy pointers about how to shoot
    >>> the ceremony. Both for when they walk in and out of the church (i.e.
    >>> motion, albeit slow) and shots when they're up on the altar. My
    >>> equipment is this:
    >>>
    >>> Nikon D3S
    >>> |- Sigma 28mm/1.8
    >>> |- Nikkor 50mm/1.4
    >>> `- Tamron 28-300/3.5-6.3
    >>>
    >>> Nikon D80
    >>> `- Tamron 18-200/3.5-6.3 (same as above, but DX)
    >>>
    >>> I will be going to the church prior to the shoot to do some test
    >>> shoots, but I was hoping to get some nudges in the right direction.
    >>> The D3S has awesome ISO so I was hoping that I wouldn't have to crank
    >>> down the aperture and thus get a deeper focus plane. I was also hoping
    >>> to get by without using a tripod.
    >>>
    >>> Plus, I was kind of hoping to use the zoom lens when they walk into
    >>> the church, and since it has such high aperture, I am concerned about
    >>> the shutter speeds needed.
    >>>
    >>> Either way, any comments are welcome - even flaming ones :)

    >>
    >>
    >> I had an amateur photographer shoot my wedding (film Nikon) and the
    >> results were outstanding, but it was outdoors and with high end slide
    >> film (at the time a lot of professionals shot slide film).

    >
    > Just WHEN was that time? Wedding photogs make their $$$ selling PRINTS to
    > the family. Friends, etc.


    As I said, I had an amateur photographer shoot my wedding. He was not a
    wedding photographer. He was a friend. I paid for the film and gave him
    a $200 gift, and he gave me the rolls of film. At the time (1990's),
    slide film was widely used by professionals.
     
    SMS, Oct 2, 2010
    #10
  11. Sandman

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 21:21:52 -0400, peter <>
    wrote:
    : On 10/1/2010 9:00 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    : > On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 09:17:51 -0700, Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
    : > wrote:
    : > : I suggest if, he goes ahead with this project unassisted, It might be
    : > : worth considering renting a 70-200mm f/2.8 and/or some other lenses
    : > : better suited to the difficult light conditions.
    : >
    : > That strikes me as a rather unwieldy lens to use for the first time at a
    : > wedding. I'm no newbie, but I wouldn't do it unless I was just there as a
    : > tagalong.
    : >
    : > It's a pretty long lens to use to photograph a wedding anyway, isn't it? I'm
    : > not that familiar with the Nikon product line; is either of those cameras
    : > full-frame?
    : >
    :
    : The D3s is full frame and low noise at high ISO. Nikon claims over
    : 100,000 will be noise free. Some of my friends have shot is at 32,000
    : with little perceptible noise.

    Noise aside, I'd think that the lens's narrow FOV would limit its utility at a
    wedding. Less of a problem on a FF camera, of course, but still pretty narrow.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Oct 2, 2010
    #11
  12. Sandman

    peter Guest

    On 10/2/2010 12:19 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2010-10-01 20:29:44 -0700, Robert Coe <> said:
    >
    >> On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 21:21:52 -0400, peter <>
    >> wrote:
    >> : On 10/1/2010 9:00 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    >> : > On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 09:17:51 -0700,
    >> Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
    >> : > wrote:
    >> : > : I suggest if, he goes ahead with this project unassisted, It
    >> might be
    >> : > : worth considering renting a 70-200mm f/2.8 and/or some other lenses
    >> : > : better suited to the difficult light conditions.
    >> : >
    >> : > That strikes me as a rather unwieldy lens to use for the first
    >> time at a
    >> : > wedding. I'm no newbie, but I wouldn't do it unless I was just
    >> there as a
    >> : > tagalong.
    >> : >
    >> : > It's a pretty long lens to use to photograph a wedding anyway,
    >> isn't it? I'm
    >> : > not that familiar with the Nikon product line; is either of those
    >> cameras
    >> : > full-frame?
    >> : >
    >> :
    >> : The D3s is full frame and low noise at high ISO. Nikon claims over
    >> : 100,000 will be noise free. Some of my friends have shot is at 32,000
    >> : with little perceptible noise.
    >>
    >> Noise aside, I'd think that the lens's narrow FOV would limit its
    >> utility at a
    >> wedding. Less of a problem on a FF camera, of course, but still pretty
    >> narrow.
    >>
    >> Bob

    >
    > Not being, nor having any desire to be a wedding photographer, I have
    > read that quite a few wedding "Pros" will include a 70-200mm f/2.8 in
    > their bag, and that also goes for both Canon & Nikon shooters. Used
    > mainly for those times when they are not able to be close to the
    > ceremony proceedings and the light is questionable, and also as a FF
    > portrait lens.
    >
    > Here is what one "Pro" Neil Van Niekerk had to say. His list of both
    > Nikkor and Canon lenses is quite interesing;
    > < http://neilvn.com/tangents/2010/08/18/lenses-for-wedding-photography/ >
    >
    > and another "Pro" Canon shooter opinion;
    > "You need the big zoom. You may not need it right away but eventually
    > you will get that gig where it’s “no flash, no approaching the altar….
    > in fact, if you could just stay in the parking lot we’d be very happy.â€
    > When that happens, you need the 70-200mm, f2.8, IS, monster. On the plus
    > side, this lens can be used everyday for portraits as it is an awesome
    > lens. Check out any website that sells this lens and read the reviews.
    > You can almost see the reviewers drooling as they write about their love
    > for it. Get it, use it, love it."
    >



    It is one of my favorite lenses. On a typical walk I put it on my D300.
    As Bob said, it does have a narrow field of view, so I also carry my
    12-24 on my D200.
    I supplement the WA with a 10.5 semi fish eye and the 70-200 with a 1.7
    converter.
    As a concession to my age I carry both bodies on a double R strap, which
    places the weight on my shoulders, rather than my neck.



    --
    Peter
     
    peter, Oct 2, 2010
    #12
  13. Sandman

    otter Guest

    On Oct 1, 8:21 pm, peter <> wrote:
    > On 10/1/2010 9:00 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    >
    > > On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 09:17:51 -0700, Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
    > > wrote:
    > > : I suggest if, he goes ahead with this project unassisted, It might be
    > > : worth considering renting a 70-200mm f/2.8 and/or some other lenses
    > > : better suited to the difficult light conditions.

    >
    > > That strikes me as a rather unwieldy lens to use for the first time at a
    > > wedding. I'm no newbie, but I wouldn't do it unless I was just there as a
    > > tagalong.

    >
    > > It's a pretty long lens to use to photograph a wedding anyway, isn't it? I'm
    > > not that familiar with the Nikon product line; is either of those cameras
    > > full-frame?

    >
    > The D3s is full frame and low noise at high ISO. Nikon claims over
    > 100,000 will be noise free. Some of my friends have shot is at 32,000
    > with little perceptible noise.
    >
    > --
    > Peter


    http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Nikon-D3S-12513

    I wouldn't say "noise free", but pretty good never-the-less. The
    camera isn't cheap, though.
     
    otter, Oct 2, 2010
    #13
  14. Sandman

    peter Guest

    On 10/2/2010 9:08 AM, otter wrote:
    > On Oct 1, 8:21 pm, peter<> wrote:
    >> On 10/1/2010 9:00 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 09:17:51 -0700, Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
    >>> wrote:
    >>> : I suggest if, he goes ahead with this project unassisted, It might be
    >>> : worth considering renting a 70-200mm f/2.8 and/or some other lenses
    >>> : better suited to the difficult light conditions.

    >>
    >>> That strikes me as a rather unwieldy lens to use for the first time at a
    >>> wedding. I'm no newbie, but I wouldn't do it unless I was just there as a
    >>> tagalong.

    >>
    >>> It's a pretty long lens to use to photograph a wedding anyway, isn't it? I'm
    >>> not that familiar with the Nikon product line; is either of those cameras
    >>> full-frame?

    >>
    >> The D3s is full frame and low noise at high ISO. Nikon claims over
    >> 100,000 will be noise free. Some of my friends have shot is at 32,000
    >> with little perceptible noise.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Peter

    >
    > http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Nikon-D3S-12513
    >
    > I wouldn't say "noise free", but pretty good never-the-less. The
    > camera isn't cheap, though.



    I agree, it is not noise free. But depending on the situation, some
    noise is better than no picture.
    And no, the 70-200 is not cheap.


    --
    Peter
     
    peter, Oct 2, 2010
    #14
  15. Sandman

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sat, 02 Oct 2010 11:00:37 -0500, George Kerby
    <> wrote:

    >
    >
    >
    >On 10/1/10 9:22 PM, in article 4ca6976b$0$22091$,
    >"SMS" <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 10/1/2010 11:38 AM, George Kerby wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> On 10/1/10 12:40 PM, in article 4ca61cfb$0$22139$,
    >>> "SMS"<> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 9/30/2010 2:57 PM, Sandman wrote:
    >>>>> So, I'm going to shoot a wedding later in october and I've never
    >>>>> actually shot people inside a dimly lit church before. The ceremony
    >>>>> will be at 2 pm so the large mosaic windows will surely let some light
    >>>>> in, but the church is usually pretty dark either way.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> So, with that in mind, I'd like some easy pointers about how to shoot
    >>>>> the ceremony. Both for when they walk in and out of the church (i.e.
    >>>>> motion, albeit slow) and shots when they're up on the altar. My
    >>>>> equipment is this:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Nikon D3S
    >>>>> |- Sigma 28mm/1.8
    >>>>> |- Nikkor 50mm/1.4
    >>>>> `- Tamron 28-300/3.5-6.3
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Nikon D80
    >>>>> `- Tamron 18-200/3.5-6.3 (same as above, but DX)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I will be going to the church prior to the shoot to do some test
    >>>>> shoots, but I was hoping to get some nudges in the right direction.
    >>>>> The D3S has awesome ISO so I was hoping that I wouldn't have to crank
    >>>>> down the aperture and thus get a deeper focus plane. I was also hoping
    >>>>> to get by without using a tripod.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Plus, I was kind of hoping to use the zoom lens when they walk into
    >>>>> the church, and since it has such high aperture, I am concerned about
    >>>>> the shutter speeds needed.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Either way, any comments are welcome - even flaming ones :)
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I had an amateur photographer shoot my wedding (film Nikon) and the
    >>>> results were outstanding, but it was outdoors and with high end slide
    >>>> film (at the time a lot of professionals shot slide film).
    >>>
    >>> Just WHEN was that time? Wedding photogs make their $$$ selling PRINTS to
    >>> the family. Friends, etc.

    >>
    >> As I said, I had an amateur photographer shoot my wedding. He was not a
    >> wedding photographer. He was a friend. I paid for the film and gave him
    >> a $200 gift, and he gave me the rolls of film. At the time (1990's),
    >> slide film was widely used by professionals.

    >
    >Agreed that most professionals preferred transparency film for commercial
    >work because it was preferred for color separations and various offset
    >commercial applications. OTOH, *Wedding* photographers have NEVER preferred
    >transparency stock to negative material simply because of the cost and work
    >factors when producing a print for albums, family, etc.


    When my wife and I were married in 1964 the (professional) wedding
    photographer asked us if we wanted prints or slides and offered a
    combination of a minimal print package plus slides. I assume he was
    planning to take two cameras, but we didn't order slides. Most of the
    family members who took pictures and gave us copies of their pictures
    were using slide film. Slide shows were favored in that era.




    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Oct 2, 2010
    #15
  16. Sandman

    otter Guest

    On Oct 2, 11:02 am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > On 2010-10-02 06:31:05 -0700, peter <> said:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On 10/2/2010 9:08 AM, otter wrote:
    > >> On Oct 1, 8:21 pm, peter<>  wrote:
    > >>> On 10/1/2010 9:00 PM, Robert Coe wrote:

    >
    > >>>> On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 09:17:51 -0700, Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
    > >>>> wrote:
    > >>>> : I suggest if, he goes ahead with this project unassisted, It might be
    > >>>> : worth considering renting a 70-200mm f/2.8 and/or some other lenses
    > >>>> : better suited to the difficult light conditions.

    >
    > >>>> That strikes me as a rather unwieldy lens to use for the first time at a
    > >>>> wedding. I'm no newbie, but I wouldn't do it unless I was just there as a
    > >>>> tagalong.

    >
    > >>>> It's a pretty long lens to use to photograph a wedding anyway, isn't it? I'm
    > >>>> not that familiar with the Nikon product line; is either of those cameras
    > >>>> full-frame?

    >
    > >>> The D3s is full frame and low noise at high ISO. Nikon claims over
    > >>> 100,000 will be noise free. Some of my friends have shot is at 32,000
    > >>> with little perceptible noise.

    >
    > >>> --
    > >>> Peter

    >
    > >>http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Nikon-D3S-12513

    >
    > >> I wouldn't say "noise free", but pretty good never-the-less.  The
    > >> camera isn't cheap, though.

    >
    > > I agree, it is not noise free. But depending on the situation, some
    > > noise is better than no picture.
    > > And no, the 70-200 is not cheap.

    >
    > ...but this shooter already has a D3s available for the shoot.
    > He just doesn't have quality lenses for the shoot. Those he, or the
    > happy couple could rent. He could rent a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II for 7
    > days @ $96, and a 24-70mm f/2.8 AF-S ED for 7 days @ $72.
    > $168 for both lenses including return shipping, is not bad.
    > <http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/nikon/lenses>
    >
    > --
    > Regards,
    >
    > Savageduck


    Well, if he can afford a D3s, he can obviously afford the lenses. I
    guess I could do that too, if I sold my wife's car. Hmmm, now that's
    an idea.
     
    otter, Oct 2, 2010
    #16
  17. On 10/2/10 PDT 10:06 AM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Sat, 02 Oct 2010 11:00:37 -0500, George Kerby
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> On 10/1/10 9:22 PM, in article 4ca6976b$0$22091$,
    >> "SMS"<> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 10/1/2010 11:38 AM, George Kerby wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> On 10/1/10 12:40 PM, in article 4ca61cfb$0$22139$,
    >>>> "SMS"<> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 9/30/2010 2:57 PM, Sandman wrote:
    >>>>>> So, I'm going to shoot a wedding later in october and I've never
    >>>>>> actually shot people inside a dimly lit church before. The ceremony
    >>>>>> will be at 2 pm so the large mosaic windows will surely let some light
    >>>>>> in, but the church is usually pretty dark either way.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> So, with that in mind, I'd like some easy pointers about how to shoot
    >>>>>> the ceremony. Both for when they walk in and out of the church (i.e.
    >>>>>> motion, albeit slow) and shots when they're up on the altar. My
    >>>>>> equipment is this:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Nikon D3S
    >>>>>> |- Sigma 28mm/1.8
    >>>>>> |- Nikkor 50mm/1.4
    >>>>>> `- Tamron 28-300/3.5-6.3
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Nikon D80
    >>>>>> `- Tamron 18-200/3.5-6.3 (same as above, but DX)
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I will be going to the church prior to the shoot to do some test
    >>>>>> shoots, but I was hoping to get some nudges in the right direction.
    >>>>>> The D3S has awesome ISO so I was hoping that I wouldn't have to crank
    >>>>>> down the aperture and thus get a deeper focus plane. I was also hoping
    >>>>>> to get by without using a tripod.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Plus, I was kind of hoping to use the zoom lens when they walk into
    >>>>>> the church, and since it has such high aperture, I am concerned about
    >>>>>> the shutter speeds needed.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Either way, any comments are welcome - even flaming ones :)
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I had an amateur photographer shoot my wedding (film Nikon) and the
    >>>>> results were outstanding, but it was outdoors and with high end slide
    >>>>> film (at the time a lot of professionals shot slide film).
    >>>>
    >>>> Just WHEN was that time? Wedding photogs make their $$$ selling PRINTS to
    >>>> the family. Friends, etc.
    >>>
    >>> As I said, I had an amateur photographer shoot my wedding. He was not a
    >>> wedding photographer. He was a friend. I paid for the film and gave him
    >>> a $200 gift, and he gave me the rolls of film. At the time (1990's),
    >>> slide film was widely used by professionals.

    >>
    >> Agreed that most professionals preferred transparency film for commercial
    >> work because it was preferred for color separations and various offset
    >> commercial applications. OTOH, *Wedding* photographers have NEVER preferred
    >> transparency stock to negative material simply because of the cost and work
    >> factors when producing a print for albums, family, etc.

    >
    > When my wife and I were married in 1964 the (professional) wedding
    > photographer asked us if we wanted prints or slides and offered a
    > combination of a minimal print package plus slides. I assume he was
    > planning to take two cameras, but we didn't order slides. Most of the
    > family members who took pictures and gave us copies of their pictures
    > were using slide film. Slide shows were favored in that era.


    He should have had two cameras, but for reasons other than shooting pos.
    and negs. Pros, or anyone with sufficient quantity of processing could
    get prints from slides relatively inexpensively. So he probably shot
    positives. I'm sure GK would agree there could be many exceptions to the
    general rule.

    --
    john mcwilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Oct 2, 2010
    #17
  18. Sandman

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sat, 02 Oct 2010 13:27:15 -0500, George Kerby
    <> wrote:

    >
    >Every wedding photographer I have ever known, and they have been quite a few
    >(I even dabbled in it at one time, but it wasn't worth the extreme amount of
    >time consumed to do it right), used 220 VPS negative film, which were taken
    >to a *PRO* lab where specially priced wedding 5" x 5" (4" x 5") proofs were
    >made for presentation. The family was not obligated, but usually bought this
    >proof book along with the agreed upon number of final enlargements for the
    >wedding album. The bonus was the extra enlargements ordered by family and
    >friends resulting in additional sales. The idea of using Ektachrome or any
    >other transparency film was unheard of because of factors I mentioned in my
    >previous posts here. Sure there could be exceptions, like everything else,
    >but weddings were done with negatives, much like portraiture. Commercial /
    >industrial / architectual were done with transparency materials - in most
    >cases.


    All I can tell you, George, is that the pro photographer who shot our
    wedding offered either prints, slides, or both.

    We didn't get a book. We couldn't afford it. We got a studio head
    shot of my wife for the newspaper, an 8 x 10 of my wife and I together
    outside the church after the wedding, and one group shot of the whole
    family. That's it. The rest of the wedding photographs we have were
    taken by friends and relatives like this one (scanned from a slide) at
    the reception:

    http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/1964-10-018-1.jpg



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Oct 2, 2010
    #18
  19. Sandman

    Kyle Guest

    "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > All I can tell you, George, is that the pro photographer who shot our
    > wedding offered either prints, slides, or both.
    >
    > We didn't get a book. We couldn't afford it. We got a studio head
    > shot of my wife for the newspaper, an 8 x 10 of my wife and I together
    > outside the church after the wedding, and one group shot of the whole
    > family. That's it. The rest of the wedding photographs we have were
    > taken by friends and relatives like this one (scanned from a slide) at
    > the reception:
    >
    > http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/1964-10-018-1.jpg



    I apologise for coming in late. I haven't read the previous posts.

    I love looking at older photos. Your wife looks hot BTW Tony and I dig the
    photo. The photo looks soft, but not OOF soft. So basically, the worlds
    your oyster. If you do nothing else, at least sharpen it, as it will bring
    out your faces a lot more.

    As far as wedding photographers go, I like Lafflers style:
    http://lafflerphotography.com/blog/
     
    Kyle, Oct 2, 2010
    #19
  20. Sandman

    Shawn Hirn Guest

    In article <>, "MC" <>
    wrote:

    > Mr. Strat wrote:
    >
    > > In article <>, Sandman
    > > <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > Either way, any comments are welcome - even flaming ones :)

    > >
    > > Just asking these questions shows that you are unqualified to
    > > photograph this once-in-a-lifetime event. I don't think I could count
    > > the number of times I've seen amateurs photograph weddings with
    > > disastrous results in the end. Tell the couple to cough up the bucks
    > > and hire a pro.

    >
    > Every wedding pro has to shoot their first wedding at some point.
    > However, if not as a pro's assistant, first weddings should be limited
    > to small, quiet, non church afairs IMO.
    >
    > In reply to the OP. In dimly lit locations it is always tempting to
    > use high (noisy) ISOs. Try not to do this as the results can, and
    > often do, look awful. Use fast lenses. Most wedding photogaphers of
    > any worth will spend an awful lot of money on quality, fast lenses.



    And a good sturdy tripod. Attempting to shoot photos of a wedding in a
    dimly lighted church without a tripod is just asking for trouble.
     
    Shawn Hirn, Oct 3, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. cuscus

    best camera settings for photography inside church

    cuscus, Aug 4, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    12,273
    Randall Ainsworth
    Aug 4, 2003
  2. Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan and Trevor

    REVIEW: "Fighting Spam for Dummies", John R. Levine/Margaret Levine Young/Ray Everett-Church

    Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan and Trevor, Aug 23, 2004, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    495
    Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan and Trevor
    Aug 23, 2004
  3. Rich

    Visit the Church

    Rich, Nov 26, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    512
    David Magda
    Dec 23, 2004
  4. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    346
    John McWilliams
    Sep 7, 2005
  5. weddingo
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,092
    Paul Heslop
    Jun 8, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page